Closing Bell - Closing Bell 8/18/25

Episode Date: August 18, 2025

From the open to the close, “Closing Bell” and “Closing Bell: Overtime” have you covered. From what’s driving market moves to how investors are reacting, Scott Wapner, Jon Fortt, Morgan Brennan and Michael Santoli guide listeners through each trading session and bring to you some of the biggest names in business.

Okay, the president of the United States, along with key European leaders there in the East Room, a true unprecedented gathering of European leadership in the White House, really world leaders gathering in the White House at a single moment as President Trump was just talking about the so-called coalition of the willing meeting today to try and put an end to the war in Ukraine. The president's suggesting we'll give it our best shot, sounded reasonably optimistic, in fact, that they were going to make some progress today. Among the headlines that the president said, as you heard there, we need to discuss possible changes of territory. That's obviously been a critical sticking point in the negotiating here. This is only a decision, he said,

that can be made by the people of Ukraine and President Zelensky and President Putin. What is seeming to be a real point of contention is to whether a ceasefire is needed to proceed. in Amon Jabbers, who's been watching all of this unfold. That's what struck me, Amin, the president repeating numerous times that he doesn't think a ceasefire is necessary anymore to make progress. But if you heard some of the other leaders in that room, Chancellor Merritt suggesting I don't think we could have a trilateral meeting or take this to that next step without it, calling it a necessity. President Macron of France dictating that as well. It's a truce as a necessity, he said. Let's start there. Yeah, I think it's smart to put your finger on

that, Scott, because that was the one area where they did not seem to be on the same page, and you did detect a little bit of a disagreement in the room. The idea that MERS was saying, you know, I don't think we can move forward with a trilateral meeting unless there's a ceasefire in place. President Trump very much wants that trilateral meeting with himself, Vladimir Putin, and Vladimir Zelensky, to do what would be a historic peace deal here. The Chancellor of Germany is saying, well, wait a second, you know, we might not be ready to go forward with that. So that was the area where I think there was the most, you know, conflict in this room to the extent that there was any. But both Zelensky and Trump here really at pains to suggest that they had a very positive one-on-one meeting behind closed doors, which lasted by our count about an hour's time off camera between the two men and presumably

aides and staffers on both sides. So a positive outlook from the president who said, while difficult, peace is within reach. And fascinating that at the end, he sort of hedged that idea and leaned a little bit more on the difficult idea, suggesting that it may not happen, but we're going to work hard at it. The president doesn't want to set a bar here for success being peace deal or not. nothing. He understands that this is a very tricky situation. The other issue that's going to be heavily negotiated is obviously around security guarantees,

which you did hear as well. The president seems open to some degree. It's just a matter of what that would look like. You noted earlier, I think quite smartly, that he didn't the president walk away from the idea or immediately shoot down the idea of U.S. troops playing some level of role there. You heard Kirstarmer of the U.K. talk about guarantees being a necessity, and then Georgie Maloney of Italy saying, quote, we have to make sure this won't happen again. So those are the two issues that seem to be top of mind in that room, a potential ceasefire negotiated, and then some guarantee on the idea of security in that region. Yeah, and each leader is seeking to praise President Trump for what they believe he

doing and moving in the right direction. You heard the head of NATO there praising President Trump and saying that you have said that you're willing to participate in security guarantees is really a breakthrough today, suggesting that Trump's willingness to put U.S. troops, U.S. force on the table as part of that security guarantee is the breakthrough that he had been looking for on this day of negotiations. And the president, as you say, not taking the idea of U.S. troops off the table when given that opportunity in the Oval Office. So the question now becomes what does that look like? What does that really mean? Are we talking about boots on the ground or some other means by which the U.S. could project force in defense of Ukraine in the event of another Russian invasion if they were able to get a ceasefire here? Amen, you stay with me. I want to bring in Michael O'Hanlin, foreign policy director of the Brooking

Institution. He was with us on Friday, and he's with us once again. It's nice to have you back on our program. Your reaction to what you've heard already? It's encouraging. You know, I think that if nothing else, we can begin to be a little bit relieved that Friday's meeting in Alaska did not bring President Trump all the way over into Putin's camp somehow. A lot of people were worried about that, given Putin's history of being able to sort of mesmerize the American president. But I really felt that that was unlikely, based on the fact that Trump's come a long way in his understanding of this war and how he allocates responsibility. So today was a reaffirmation of that. But this discussion of the United States being willing to be engaged in some kind of

backstop to Ukraine's long-term security is really promising for those of us who believe in such structures and such commitments. And I don't quite know yet what it means. It sounds like no one quite yet knows what it means, but it's a very positive, promising step. It's nowhere near the end of the war. And if there is a trilateral, it's not going to be a success on day one. But I think we're starting to see some pieces at least coalesce around where they'll have to be eventually. What do you make, Michael, of what appears to be, I don't want to call it a full-blown disagreement or a point of contention, but certainly differing views on the idea of whether a ceasefire is needed to take the next step?

I think it's an important debate, but it will become less important with time, and here's why, because if there is no reasonable effort by Putin to end this war fairly soon, and I doubt there will be, then this whole notion that we should try to negotiate peace will just seem to everyone like a play for time. And Trump's pretty good at sniffing out that kind of tactical ploy. And so, again, I'm going to, I have more confidence in the American president than some of the strategic community. I think that when he says, he would like a peace plan. He's essentially saying to Putin, go ahead, give it a try. But if you don't have some serious movement by the fall, don't expect me to forego sanctions or additional

punishment. That's what I hope it means we'll have to see. Let's examine that a little bit further if we could. Coming out of Anchorage, there was, I think, a high degree of criticism over the rolling out of the red carpet quite literally for President Putin, the way that he was greeted by President Trump, and for that matter, whether he even should have been invited to put his feet on U.S. soil, never mind being invited into the presidential limousine. What I heard around the table just now from these other leaders did not sound like gratuitous praise of the president's efforts to try and get some sort of solution to this problem, that they seem to believe that what the did by meeting with Putin, whether it was in Alaska or wherever it would be, if nothing else,

restarted a dialogue that can get you closer to a finish line here. Can you give me your thoughts on that? I think your theory is perfectly plausible, but this is one of those situations where the proof is in the pudding. I mean, whether this was too much of a concession is going to depend on where the diplomacy goes now. And if it winds up going nowhere, and it seems like we treated a war criminal or an indicted war criminal and mass murderer very well in American territory, then I don't think it's going to read down to President Trump's benefit as a peacemaker. But if this somehow leads to a multi-step process, that however ugly, however zigzaggy, winds up in a better place, then I think people will say maybe we have to hold our noses and acknowledge that it was a tolerable

way to do diplomacy with a bad guy. Amen, I'll come back to you on just the overall optics of how today has unfolded what is an entirely different optical event from what we witnessed six months ago. From a tonal perspective, there's just no doubt that there was a way more conciliatory tone, much more cordial and warm greeting from the president this time. It would be notable, too, that when Zelensky was berated by the vice president in the Oval Office, yes, Vice President Vance was in there, as were other members of top U.S. leadership, but it was was the presidents who were speaking to one another and to the media. Yeah, and you saw today that Vice President Vans did not speak in that Oval Office session

and did not speak here at the gathering of world leaders. Obviously, he's in number two, and that table was for number ones only. And so that was an interesting change of personnel, I guess, you could say. I think if we stopped here and there was no more news today, this White House would say this has been a tremendous success today. Friday, they would say, was a success because the president, got Vladimir Putin talking and got him to agree to this idea of security guarantees on one level or another. Today they will say is a success because you had the president convening these

world leaders showing United Front with the Western world and pushing for peace, which is his main goal here. So what we'll watch for is the language and the rhetoric from these world leaders after this meeting today as they depart the White House. We'll see what else they have to say and see if they can put some more meat on the bones in terms of what exactly these security guarantees will be and what the U.S. role in particular will be. That has a potential to be very controversial here in the United States for the president, particularly among his political base. I think that's the point that, at least part I was trying to make with Michael O'Hanlon,

is the praise that you heard from these other world leaders to the president in the room felt more. more genuine, if you will. I mean, hearing the head of NATO talk about being really excited at the possibility of being able to end this war and make some kind of deal out of it and the other world leaders who were there telling the president directly that whatever his outreach and whatever form it was going to be to Vladimir Putin has had some kind of positive impact on them. Yeah. I mean, I think that's the right read. here. I mean, these leaders do see this as a moment where, you know, the president has, you know, shaken up the YATI table and reset the game pieces. And now they have the possibility to maybe

find a way to get to a deal. As complicated as that is, and you heard the president acknowledging just how complicated and daunting it can be, but maybe a glimmer of optimism here in what has been a very bleak and tragic story so far. Amen, we'll see how the rest of the day unfolds. Appreciate your reporting as always. Our thanks to Michael O'Handlin of Brook as well. We'll monitor the events out of the White House today. We're obviously watching what's happening here on Wall Street because it's a very, very big week given the Fed gathering that's going to happen out in Jackson Hole and where market expectations are in terms of rate cuts and how investors have positioned themselves. Let's talk more about that with Solis

Alternative Asset Management's Dan Greenhouse, New York Life's Lauren Goodwin and Capital Area Planning Groups Malcolm Etheridge. It's great to have everybody with us. We'll turn Dan our attention from the White House to Wall Street where we do have all of this anticipation now about what could be said at the end of the week. Are we in wait and sea mode until we actually hear from Chair Powell? I don't think there's any doubt that we're in wait and sea mode. There's this, there are two obviously strong competing views about what the Fed is likely to do, what the Fed should do, what the Fed could do, what the President should or could do in response to what the Fed should or could do. So I think market participants are pretty divided. And so I think we're

definitely in a wait-and-see mood. My own personal view is that I think the bias is still for them to reduce rates by 25 basis points at the September meeting. But I certainly think 50 basis points, which was always a really unlikely outcome, is now basically dead in the water. And the question is, how does the chairman frame, I'm sorry, the debate that's currently being had both inside and outside the Federal Reserve. Malcolm, how do you see the events of this week and their importance to where this market goes from here? Yeah, I think to Dan's point about 25 basis points now versus potentially 50. If you're a stock market investor,

the Jackson Hole conversation, even if it results in a September cut, doesn't really matter for you nearly as much as the AI conversation we've been having for the last year and change, right? So as long as you have the likes of Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and META, it's scheduled to spend the collective $350 billion

on investing in AI infrastructure just this year alone, that is the story, the narrative that's carrying the market. So a couple of interest rate cuts aren't really gonna matter for those companies or any of the other hyper-scalers who don't have to borrow to make those investments. They can cash flow it themselves if they choose to.

And so I think Jackson Hole will be important. I think a September cut versus later this year will be important. But for stock market investors specifically, it really isn't gonna move the markets. Lauren, what are your thoughts? I mean, I thought it's interesting that we still have a considerable debate from the Wall Street houses,

if you will, on what the Fed's going to do over the remainder of the year and into next. Goldman's sticking with three cuts this year and two next. Other firms are saying none this year. There was one other that said, well, we'll get one. Does any of that matter for where stocks would go between now and the remainder of the year? I think it does matter because the market has really coalesced around the idea that no matter what the pace of rate cuts, the Fed is in a prolonged cutting cycle. I think the challenging reality for that narrative is that I'm on the side of the fence that says the data, though we have some evidence that

cutting could make sense in the near term, it's not a clear cut case for the Fed. And the points that Malcolm's making around AI investment, the reality of the broader sense of policy uncertainty that's making its way through the market over the remainder of the year, those are are contributing to that case that not only are the economic conditions not necessarily requiring a cut, but financial conditions aren't necessarily requiring a cut. And so I think the narrative that the Fed is moving towards cutting over some timeline is the most important piece exactly when and how frequently isn't as important right now. Dan, I like Malcolm's perspective on this, that essentially what's happening all around us is noise in the

in the face of what is an undeniable and long-lasting trend of AI and this transformative impact that it's having not only on these companies, on these markets, the way we're all going to think about living, working, investing in the years ahead. Goldman's Tony Pascarillo today says one specific point to underline here is my longstanding bias for large cap over small cap. There's good reason to still believe in the fundamental underpinnings of that trend. I agree with a lot of what Malcolm had to say, and the sentiment again to repeat is just you've got to this secular theme that is driving the market. And for the hundredth time, Malcolm's made the point, I've made the point, Dan Ives has made the point. This goes beyond invidia and Broadcom. It goes down to

Amphanol and GE-Vernova and Vistra and Vertive and Eaton and trained technologies and all the other parts of the S&B 500 industrial's utilities that are benefiting from the secular trade. And if we think about this, and I've talked about this a bunch, I know Dan Ives, who's coming up later has as well, if you think about this through the late 90s, the number of times, the number of times, people told you in the late 90s, as subsequent to the Netscape IPO, the number of people wrote about and discussed market valuations being excessive, and it's a bubble that was forming, et cetera, et cetera, was enumerate over those five years. And it wasn't until, and this is the most important point, it wasn't until 2000 when you had the DOJ stepping in to prevent some additional

mergers, which had been a huge driver of the gains, and profit warnings from Intel, from Lucent, from Sun Micro, et cetera, et cetera. We're nowhere near, even really a slowdown in cloud growth, let alone profit warnings. And I really think more, to again, to Malcolm's point, as long as that trend is in place, yeah, the Fed matters. Lauren's right. As long as you're skating towards lower rates, that's a positive. But that theme is playing itself out and is unimpeded at the moment. I thought, Malcolm, that was part of Rick Reader's point last week that he made on this program, that you can, you can have a problem with valuation of those AI stocks. But when you look at the degree in which they're growing their

and they are at the forefront of what's truly happening, and it doesn't look to be slowing down anytime soon. If you pair that with the idea that, well, the Fed is going to be cutting rates at some point, it may not be on the calendar that certain people think, want, or expect, but there are enough things that you can put one plus one plus one equals a pretty darn good outcome for these markets. Well, the last two earnings periods have made that case too, right, Scott? So we had the questions last year of, have the hypers gone too much too soon?

Have they invested too many dollars? Are they committed to too much CAPEX? And that started to weigh on that growth narrative. And then this year, so far, the first two quarters, you had the likes of Microsoft, for example, or NVIDIA, who showed up with bang out numbers once again proving that there really is still demand and not enough supply for all of these different critical components to dance point of the AI infrastructure in the AI arms race, that's proving in real time. It's not a thing that we have to wait three, five, ten years to see how are these

investments going to pay off. Meta's already delivering results each time they come to us with earnings. And so they are defying gravity from an earnings multiple perspective. But I think they're also earning a little bit ahead way. And that is really the narrative that I think stock market investors, again, should be paying attention to. If you're a bond fund manager, obviously every quarter point matters to you. But realistically, unless we're talking about more than a 50 basis point cut at any of these two or three Fed meetings that we're expected to have before the year is over, and that's what's supposed to drive the cutting pattern.

Unless they're massive cuts, I just don't think that it's really going to be enough to rock the confidence of any stock market investor who's really been paying attention. Lauren, do you think that the broadening trade, so to speak, is the biggest wildcard this week? I want to pick up on one of the elements of Malcolm's argument, which is that we've been talking a lot about equity investors, but a lot of the news this week is impacting other asset classes as well. And I think this is a component of an asset allocator's challenge right now that's really, really important. Mentioned a little bit with respect to Jackson Hole this week and the Fed, that 25 basis points now or in a couple of months probably doesn't make a ton of difference. But that promise, let's say, or assurance of some sort of cutting cycle is even more important in the face of the broad range of policy uncertainty that we're seeing. I mean, we're talking earlier in the program about war, energy security, defense, geopolitics.

These are all elements of the policy backdrop that are impacting and have caused a major freeze-up in asset classes like private equity and that private-equity, private-credit landscape. And so moving towards a direction where the Fed could be signaling a little bit of easing actually contributes back to the public equity markets by unlocking some capital out of other elements of the public and private markets. Guys, we'll leave it there. Appreciate it very much. Appreciate you rolling with us, too, through our breaking news, Dan Malcolm and Lauren.

We'll see all of you again soon. Up next, star analyst Dan Ives, he's changing up his AI revolution list. The names he is adding, the ones he is dropping, we'll bring him to you next. Welcome back. Is the AI market in a bubble? That's what Open AI CEO, Sam Altman, is warning, saying over the weekend, investors are, quote, overexcited about the AI trade.

Joining me here post-9 is star Wedbush analyst Dan Ives. He is as excited as his coat is bright, right? I mean, it's Altman onto something or no? Look, I mean, I believe we're only in the second inning of a nine-inning game. I mean, because it's our view. On the enterprise side, it's just started to play out from use cases. I think as we go into the consumer and ultimately what's going to be autonomous and really the derivatives, I mean, Scott, it's my view the next two, three years, we have a tech bowl market,

and I think AI revolution, the actual impact over the medium and long term is actually being underestimated. Is he doing a greenspan here where he sort of waves the flag, but we don't see the results of the hurricane until years down the road? Yeah, I think it comes, look, and Altman obviously being the Golden Child that we see when it comes to AI, I think what he's talking about, there could be some froth at stages or parts of this. Could be? But, well, especially when you talk about some of the valuations on some of maybe on the private side, what I see on the public side, I see ultimately demand that's 30 to 40 percent more than I saw it three, four months ago. I see a CAP-X, you know, ultimately, really a transformational CAP-X that I view as a fourth industrial revolution. There's no question about a transformational CAP-X.

Does the return on the CAP-X meet the moment or not? That's what we're all going to be boiled down to. We have built-in assumptions. You and every investor who's buying these stocks have done that. It has to result in something where you get a moment like Dan Greenhouse was talking about when the bottom eventually fell out in 2000. Yeah. And I think what Dan's talking about, and to me, the last quarter and what we're seeing out there in terms of earnings, it's actually been a validation moment for AI. And it's our view that when we look out over the next 12, 18 months, I think as you look at the second third derivatives across software, cybersecurity, autonomous. I believe investors are actually underestimating. Where we believe, look, it speaks to our view where this tech market's going. And I get the skepticism, but they'll continue to prove it wrong. you know, I think quarter after quarter. Okay, you're adjusting the way that you want to,

the way you want investors to look at all of this through your AI 30 list, where you've updated it with additions and subtractions. You've added CrowdStrike, Roblox, G.EVernova, and Nebius Group. You've taken off C3AI, cyber, following Palo Alto's deal, Adobe, and Elastic.

So, I mean, I think people can look at Adobe, and figure out why you've removed it. Some would question why it was you been on there in the first place if it was an AI 30 list when they apparently, according to the investment community and the markets, clearly are being left out of that conversation. But why crowd in terms of AI?

GE-Vernova is I think well known by everybody as to the power portion of this and Roblox. Yeah. So crowd, first, when it comes to cybersecurity, I actually think first pow out to which I was to report and later, Z scale, and I think CrowdStrike, you're going to see AI play more and more of role in cybersecurity. That's actually thought it's one of the biggest beneficiaries when it comes second,

third derivatives. I think Crowdstrike is not being factored in enough. You talk about some of the infrastructure plays, Nebius, you know, being a core one. And to us, look, when it comes to Roblox, I mean, it's our overview of gaming what's happened on the consumer side. I mean, you are seeing AI transformation that's happening across the industry. And to us, the whole goal of the AI 30 is to capture based on whether it's software, chips, consumer, autonomous. And what I believe, this is a golden age for AI. It's not just about three, four names. All right, good to see you. Thanks for being here. Dan Ives, Wed Bush. Up next, top strategist, Chris Farron's with us. He says investors are banking on a rate cut, so which sectors stand to benefit the most?

What happens if we don't get one? He'll tell us next. All right, markets begin the week. with all attention on Jackson Hole. That's where the Fed holds its annual gathering. Rate cut expectations have sent stocks to new highs lately. Let's bring in Chris Farone from Stratigas for his insights. But that's what we're trading on, right? Yeah.

Rate cuts. The hopes and dreams of rate cuts? Well, I think that's been the leadership message, particularly the last four or five, six weeks. And really even pre-August payrolls, the soft print, you began to see stuff like home builders, biotech, small caps start to come to life. And, you know, it's been a welcome rotation as some of the bigger stuff. some of the AI-driven stories have churned here. So we certainly welcome this message

to the more economically cyclical corners of the market. I think it continues to pretend pretty good things down the road. Oh, so you believe in it? I mean, I was going to say, if we don't get the payoff, what happens to the home builders, the biotechs, and the small caps? I mean, they're already kind of acting

like they're not going to get what they want. Well, I think you're beginning to see legitimate trend changes. And again, this predates the last several weeks. I mean, these home builders began to turn three or four months ago. you're getting trend changes in all of them. Dear Horton, Lenar, Pulte, Toll. Look at some of these global autos, which, again, I would argue, are very much at the forefront of the economic cyclical story we're trying to tell here.

Things from Toyota in Japan to even GM here has acted well despite a news flow or a macro setup that would argue against owning those stocks. So I welcome when things act differently than maybe the news might suggest. So when you say the story we are trying to tell, I talk about you, you guys, your firm? Yes. So you're real believers that we're going to have. have a broadening out? Do we have money come away from mega cap into all of these underloved areas? I think it's unappreciated. The equal-wood S&P is also at new highs here. Now, we can

talk about whether small or equal weight is leadership. Doesn't take down much to get a new high. I mean, does it? The equal weight? Well, I mean, we're talking about 500. We're going with, you know, a big corner of the market. Talk about these small caps, 50-day up through the 200-day now. You look at what has worked within the small-cap arena, industrials, economically sensitive, very potent. And the fact now that you're seeing small-cap health care, which is a very large weighting in Russell, too, come to life, again, I think reflects an environment where you have kind of the best of both worlds. You have short rates coming down. You have the long end of the curve relatively stable.

I think it's a good message that steeper curve, the economy's in decent hands here. Some call the bare steepening, but I mean, we have to have cuts for this to work or no? I think with the two-year yield at 375, the market's telling you a modest easing cycle is likely in the cards here. And we always joked in our work. We'll listen to the two-year yield over any Fed speaker any day of the week. That's the gunlock perspective, too. It's like the two-year leads the Fed. And 75 pips below where Fed funds is, I think, is a good enough reason right now for the Fed to at least give you 25 into September.

And then we can talk about what the fall brings. Do you think we're going to get more this year? I think we'll get one more this year, and it sets you up. You know, we're talking about homebuilding or housing, maybe for a better than expected spring selling season. I think that's what these homebuilding stocks might be starting to pick up. Remember, Scott, these homebuilders have been in a bare market for 15, 16, 17 months. They went down 40 or 50 percent. At what point is the news in all of these?

I suspect it's probably here. We'll leave it there. Chris, thanks. Thank you. Continue in. Just for Rones, Fatigas. Coming up next, Bitcoin sinking after hitting a new record high. What's behind that drop?

We'll take you inside the market zone and tell you. closing bell market zone time cnbc senior markets commentator mike santoli's here to break down these crucial moments of the trading day tonight ama keel is tracking some big moves in crypto for us as well michael this says everything about what happens this week because the big events happen later this week yes and this market wants to see and hear what happens in jackson hole before it decides what to do rarely does the market truly wait and see as much as it's waiting and seeing today, at least at the index level. The S&P 500 seemed to get enough out of the CPI report last week to gain some confidence that were likely to get a September cut. And the S&P's been

almost dead flat for four trading days since then. Below the surface, it's trying to find things to do. For example, you know, you were talking about the small cap outperformance. The 12 worst stocks on a unit date basis are all up today in the S&P 500 by an average of more than 2%. So people are trying to rotate around and feel like, let's see if we can grab any of the left behinds. But beyond that, you're right. It's mostly about, let's see if the story changes based on what Powell has to say late this week. Yeah, let me take a little bit off of Bitcoin. And you see some of the, you know, trades like that.

And the pressure on meta and a little bit of a slight cooling off of the AI trade and maybe a little bit of a rethink on that. And the rest of the market kind of takes up the slack on a one-day basis. So Tanea, Bitcoin's at what, 116 and a half thousand. Yeah, that's right, Scott. Today, at one point, dipping below 115,000 after touching almost 125 a few days ago, Ether going down with it as well after nearly hitting its 2021 record at the same time, which we don't see a lot from these two coins, Scott, the two of them going to all-time highs together. The alt coins and some crypto stocks may have shown euphoria as of late, but action in these specific coins, I think, looks more like conviction and validation from institutional investors. So what happened? The market was highly leveraged and highly long. Crypto rolled over after that higher than expected July PPI raised questions over a September rate cut, and it triggered this wave of forced selling of long positions. I also want to note, though, that that was Bitcoin's fourth new record in 2025. And so far, those drawdowns that follow have been getting smaller

and smaller each time, Scott. So there might be more chop this month out of the crypto space, but not, I don't think, for lack of conviction. Okay. Tena, thanks so much for that. That's Tena. I'm looking, Mike, at the VIX barely budged today. It's up a little bit. I mean, things will get a little more nervy, I think, towards the end of the week, as we really try and guess whether, you know, this version of Chair Powell is going to lean a little hawkish, whether he could dictate what maybe the market takes is its hawkish cut coming. You're going to have everything parsed.

Remember, eight minutes is all his speech was at the beginning of the hiking cycle. There's absolutely a chance that he injects. some ambiguity or just some essentially contingency into the story. I don't know if he wants to front run the series of inflation employment numbers you're going to get between this Friday and the September meeting. Yeah, I do also feel as if the market itself, with consumer cyclicals holding up really well, with industrial still doing their part, with financials working, the market itself isn't telling you the real economy desperately needs a rate cut. So it's almost like it would be a nice to have, be cut of insurance. If there was a growth scare underway, it would

look more like it did last year at this time when it was 10-year yields plunging, the market implicitly saying the Fed was way behind the curve, and you had to essentially ramp up your expectations for a recession possibility. We're not seeing that right now. Does it mean the market doesn't want confirmation we're getting a cut? No, it wants it. It just doesn't necessarily feel as if it's make or break at this point. It's then again, a little bit circular. because maybe those sectors are doing well because we fully baked in or almost fully baked in a rate cut. I don't think that's all the story is. But, you know, it's like the market is starting to stall out a little bit here momentum-wise.

But really, you're not seeing any sellers get aggressive and engaged on that side, except in isolated pocket, I say. So we'll go out, what we said was a bit of a mixed picture, kind of a ho-hum trading. as all eyes are on Jackson Hall, and we're certainly waiting for more developments out of the White House today, too. Douglas for us, O.T. and Morgan.